February 1, 201412 yr So, the triplepundit.com is a better source of reliable data/news than the Wall Street Journal? That says a lot. So, what's next? I should rely on some solid expose' on skin cancer treatment in the National Enquirer instead of relying on something published in the New England Journal of Medicine? You provide straight comedy, please continue, I can't wait for what's next. Notice the ONLY thing he attacked was the least damning. :lol2:
February 1, 201412 yr In November Obama signed an executive order establishing a Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience that could dramatically expand government bureaucrats' ability to restrict Americans' use of their property, water and energy to reduce "greenhouse gas emissions." No control there. Let's ignore that when other countries did the same it's proved incredibly expensive, while barely reducing emissions. In 2007 the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013. Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores. That's 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time in 2012. Like climate changes, Arctic ice levels are cyclical.
February 1, 201412 yr Oh, and about that 97 percent claim. Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims A few tidbits from the article: Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism. Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).” “I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added. Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis. These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.
February 1, 201412 yr What's up with all the reports of snow that won't melt when heat is placed on it? I've seen that everywhere last couple of days. People also report snow turning black and having an odor but I assume that is because of the flame of what ever apparatus they used to heat with (torch, grill lighter, etc.) Still not understanding why it wouldn't melt (unless these idots are using ice instead of actual snow). Also people who say they have went more in depth say that the snow has just been weird compared to normal snow?
February 1, 201412 yr What's up with all the reports of snow that won't melt when heat is placed on it? I've seen that everywhere last couple of days. People also report snow turning black and having an odor but I assume that is because of the flame of what ever apparatus they used to heat with (torch, grill lighter, etc.) Still not understanding why it wouldn't melt (unless these idots are using ice instead of actual snow). Also people who say they have went more in depth say that the snow has just been weird compared to normal snow?I found this: The black marks on the snow are caused by the butane in the lighter that is released when the flame is held close to the snow. If you dropped the snow in a saucepan, the snow would melt. Debunking the ‘geo-engineered snow’ rumor floating around social media
February 1, 201412 yr Oh, and about that 97 percent claim. Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims A few tidbits from the article: Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism. Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).” “I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added. Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis. These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is. No way!!! I am absolutely shocked!
February 1, 201412 yr I found this: The black marks on the snow are caused by the butane in the lighter that is released when the flame is held close to the snow. If you dropped the snow in a saucepan, the snow would melt. Debunking the ‘geo-engineered snow’ rumor floating around social media About what I figured. I found it comical the people who were freaking out about it turning black. I was thinking to myself, I guess you are going to disregard the fact you are basically putting a lighter to it. :ohbrother:
February 1, 201412 yr The 97 percent consensus is real. Where the problem lies is in getting the word out to the science Luddites, the SUV Republicans, the Know Nothings and people who watch the Golf Channel all day.
February 1, 201412 yr I hope it was the side that received 99 percent of the subsidies. It was and it still left a huge inequity between those who actually contribute to the economy and those who are a drain on the economy. Kind of like the individual tax situation.
February 1, 201412 yr The 97 percent consensus is real. Where the problem lies is in getting the word out to the science Luddites, the SUV Republicans, the Know Nothings and people who watch the Golf Channel all day. Sure it is, so is the Easter Bunny.
February 1, 201412 yr I would also urge setting up Global Warming Clubs at high schools. That way young people could teach their parents.
February 1, 201412 yr Ah yes, the mindless indoctrination strategy. Maybe the home ec club could serve Baked Alaska. Ha ha.
February 2, 201412 yr The 97 percent consensus is real. Where the problem lies is in getting the word out to the science Luddites, the SUV Republicans, the Know Nothings and people who watch the Golf Channel all day.The doctoring is real, yes. I guess misclassifying the papers is meaningless to you.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.